HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/01 AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Council Chamber, City Hall
ThursdaY, August 2, 2001
5:30 p.m.
1 ~ ROLL 'CALL
NOTE:
STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairman
RON SPRAGUE, Vice-Chairman
MA THEW BRADY
DA VID GA Y ~
TOM MCGINNIS
JEFFREY TKAC
MURRAY TRAGISH
Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72
hours prior to the meeting.
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
ANY PERSONWHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK
REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS
WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND
PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Planning-Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps
are subject to appeal by any interested person adversely affected by the decision of the
Commission. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final
acceptance date of appeal.
The appeal shal include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the
decision or action appealed and shal. I state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes
the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld.
Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City
Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 9330'1. A $334 non-
refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the
applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a
$334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will
not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand.
If no appeal is received within .the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the
action of the Planning Commission shall become final.
A~enda, PC, Thursday - Au~lust 2, 2001
Page 2
3. · CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk )
These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the
Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are
recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions
and has signed an agreement' to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the
consent agenda.
If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off
consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be
opened and-the items acted on as a group.
3.1)
3.2)
Agenda Item 4) - ApProve June 7, 2001 Planning Commission minutes.
Agenda Item 5) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5696 (Coker EIIsworth, Inc)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 7, 2001.
(Ward 3)
PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for Tentative Tract Map 5696 (2"d
Submittal) (COker EIIsworth, Inc.) Containing 17 lots on 7.19 acres, zOned R-1 (One.
Family Dwelling); located 600 feet east of Fairfax Road at Highland Knolls Drive.
(Negative Declaration on file)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE -
Group Vote. '
5.1 DISCUSSION ON CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE KERN RIVER FREEWAY AND ITS'
AFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.
6.' PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTS
6.1)
Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates)
A proposed subdivision containing 32 lots for single family residential purposes,
and 1 lot for a well site on 13.47 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a
request to allow for private streets; and waiver of mineral rights signatures
pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista
Road north of White Lane (extended), on the northwest corner of Chamber
Blvd. extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declarat~0n on file)
Agenda~ PC, Thursday - August 2, 2001
Page 3
(Ward 4)\
(Ward 4)
6.2)
(Continuedfrom April 19, May 3 & 17, June 7 & 28 and July 19, 200'1)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
Group vote
Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates)
A propOsed subdiviSion Containing 48 lots on 20.83 acres for single family
residential purposeS, zone R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow
maximum block length to exceed 1,000 feet, a reverse corner lot; and waiver of
mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1 .; generally located %
mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the
southwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street.
(Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from April 19, May 3 & 17, June 7 &
28 and July 19, 2001)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE '
GrouP vote
6.3)
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6056 (Porter-Robertson)
A proposed phased tentative subdivision containing 327 lots on 100 acres for
purposes of single f~amily development, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
includ!ng a request for alternate lot and street design and request to waive
mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 BI. (Negative Declaration
on file)
(Ward 4)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
Group vote
PUBLIC HEARING - ZoneChange No. P01-0539 - Grocery Store/Fuel Islands
(Hopper Properties, L.P.) A request to change the zoning from C-2 (Regional
Commercial) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 4.3 acres to allow a
53,910 square foot grocery store and fuel islands and a request for a modification of the
parking requirement to permit a reduction in the number of standard parking spaces
from 180 spaces to 161 spaces and to allOw 46 compact parking spaces: The total
*numbe~ of parking spaces provided will be 201 spaces where 180 spaces are required '.
by ordinance; located at-110.1 Union Avenue (southwest corner of Union.Avenue and
California Avenue)._ (Negative Declaration on file)
(Ward 1)
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
Roll Call Vote
Agenda; PC, Thursday - August 2, 2001
Page 4
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
B) Verbal
o
COMMISSION COMMENTS
A) Committees
10.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE
NEXT PRE-MEETING.
11.
July 30, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
Council chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, T~agish
Absent: ' None
AdVisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, James D. Movius, Steve Walker, Jack Leonard
Staff:
Jennie Eng, Patti Hock
PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Tkac indicatedthat- he reviewed Monday's tape. Commissioner Sprague
conflicted out of item 3.2 (Agenda Item 5).
3.1) Agenda Item 4) - Approve June 7, 2001 Planning Commission minutes;
3.2) Agenda Item 5) - Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5696 (Coker EIIsworth, Inc)
Motion-made by Commi§sioner Brady, Seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to.approve Consent
Agenda Items.. Motion carried.
CommisSionerSprague stated there is a request for a continuance on Agenda Item 7 and he
made a motion to move that item up.to be heard prior to 5.1 on the Agenda. Seconded by
CommissionerTkac. Motion carried.
See Consent Agenda
See Consent Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Chan.qe No. P01-0539 - Grocery Store/Fuel Islands (Hopper
Properties, L.P.) ~
Staff advised that there has been a request for a continuance·to the September 6, 2001 Planning
Commi'ssioner hearing to worl~ out issues with neighbors.
Public portion 0f the hearing was opened for those in favor of a continuance. No one spoke either
in favor or opposition.
Public portion of the hea~ing was closed.
Minutes, pC, Au~lust 2;-200I
Page2
Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to.continue this item to
the September 6, 2001 meeti9g. Motion Carried:
A motion was. made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to advance to
Agenda Item 6.3~ Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS-- VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTS
. . -6.3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6056 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4)
Staff stated that there is a Memorandum from the Public Works Department dated July'
27th that they would like included in the motion if approved.
Public portion of the Hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition.
Harold Robertson, with Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying, stated they have
reviewed the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval, with the exception
that they need a clarification of Planning Department Condition 25. This condition refers
primarily to improvements to the multi-purpose trail construction only within the limits of a
phase, as it is constructed.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Staff stated that the clarification is appropriate. "Prior to recordation of each final map".
'Applicant stated that that would satisfy their concern.
Commissioner Brady~made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve
and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting-Tentative Tract Ma p 6056 with
findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A" with the
modification to Planning Department Condition 25 by replacing the fifth word which is "a"
with the word-"each" and adopting the.July 27, 2001 memorandum from'Marion Shaw to
the Planning Commission. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -.VESTING TENTATIVE TRACTS
6.1)
6.2)
Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates)-and
Vesting Tentative Tr, act 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4)\
Staff stated they have nothing further to add.
Public' portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition to staff's
recommendation.
Jeff Smith, Vice President and Director of Operations for Stream Energy stated that both
of these projects will undoubtedly change how they do their operations.
They feel they should, have the right as granted by the Hancock Lease to develop their
minerals, and was discussed in his April 17, 2001 letter.
Minutes, PC, AuguSt 2, 2001
Page3
Jim Marino, of Marino Associates, state~l that he will be talking about the booklet of
information provided with the addition of an attachment to Mr. Smith's APril 17th letter and
would like the Commission to think about all of the impacts.
Bob JOyce, attorney, staied that the previous continuances were to prOvide applicant and
Stream Energy the opportunity to come to terms to avoid the necessity of having this
matter come to an open hearing, but unfortunately that did not happen. The primary and'
most significant point ',of disagreement is that Stream Energy is wiling to waive and give
up the balance of service rights within the 30 acres which are left of what was
approximately 50 years ago an oil field known as the Canfield Oilfield, which
encompasses in excess of 1300 acres. 'Over the years the surface rights as to that 1300
acres of valuable productive mineral reserves has been_shrunk down to30 acres. These
two maps essentially eliminate it. So through the course of the negotiations over the last
two months they have attempted to arrive at an agreement which would .carve out of the
two maps two areas which would protect and preserve and in fact create an environment
for the future enhancement and exploration and maximization of the mineral reserves that
are in place and those efforts failed. You can't say yes when all of the questions have not
been answered. Thequestion is: "Applicant, what have YOu done? What do you intend
to do?-What can we do to protect this vital resource in these times of energy shortages?-'
If approved Stream Energy is done and there will be no more drilling. The Canfield Oilfield
1300 acres will become zero. He requested the drilling district that they need so that
there are no questions about what Stream Energy's rights are, and more significantly the
applicant won't have any questions about what their rights are, and most importantly no
homeowner who buys into either applicant tract will have any question as to what they are
buying into.
Public portion of the hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation.
Roger~Mclntosh, with~Mclntosh & Associates representing Castle & Cooke, Inc., stated
that they are not asking for a continuance. He pointed out issues that have not been
disputed. In ~1998 when Castle & Cooke applied for-a General Plan Amendment and zone
change there was a section that discussed oilfields, etc., which did discuss the current
wells existing at that time (wells 38 and 38X), and that the project applidant shall be
required to provide setbacks from idle and producing oil wells in accordance with the City
of Bakersfield Municipal Code. Applicant has no problem with this.
Mitigation measures were adopted specifically as they applied for oilfields, and the
following mitigation measure applies to the Buena Vista Project site only. Pursuant to the
Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, active wells and associated
equipment within the project area shall be enclosed by an 8' block wall with barbed wire
on the inside of the 7': level, appropriate gates shall be installed and climbable
landscaping around the perimeter of the facility shall be avoided. The inside building
facility shall be constructed so that potential spillage will be confined to the enclosure~
These are the responsibility of the project applicant and has never been disputed.
December 18, 1997 Stream Energysubmitted a letterregarding their concerns and
zoning relative to the producing wells, and the ability to operate and drill by right to be
maintained over the existing leases. The applicant never disputed this.
The issue of separate surface and mineral rights and the access protected to the
maximum extent possible has never been disputed. This was responded-to and certified
in the environmental document. In the Appendices of the Final EIR the recommendations
were made: "Prior to recordation of a parcel subdivision map all oil wells shall be located
either by consulting the Division of Oil and Gas or by metal detector." :There are a
number of abandoned wells and every time a final map is recorded they go out and locate
Minutes, PC, August 2, 2001
Page4
those Wells and make sure that'they comply with the.DOG records. "Prior to grading' all
current and former drilling sumps shall be located and inventoried by inspection." The
.applicant has no problem with this. "All abandoned wells under and near structures" ---- '
regarding setbacks to. future homes - the applicant complies with these provisions.
"Manual wells must be uncovered." "If the property will be developed with residential
uses, all wells'must be 10'" This all applies to the abandoned wells.
"Access to idle and p~oducing wells should be maintained as required by DOG". ·
Applicant has no problem with this:
By reference to the Fina EIR certified on'April 22, 1998 by the City Council, the Minutes of
that meeting show that'Mr. Smith made statements in Opposition to staff's
recommendation. Because of Mr. Smith's concern of his ability to continue to operate in
that 30 acre lease area, and in the south half of section 12, he and Mr. Smith went
outside and agreed to meet. They agreed to meet as soon as possible prior to the
second reading of the R-l.zonechange. The purpose of that meeting was to try to
resolve the issues and the differences to make sure that Stream's interests were
~)rotected, and Castle & Cooke~s interests were protected.. They met on April 28, 1998. '
On May 8,. 1998 Mr. Mclntosh wrote a letter to Stream reiterating their meeting of April 28,
1998 wherein it ~vas discussed that Stream Energy would provide Castle & Cooke within
five Working days the-location of the first well to be drilled in the south half of section 12.
They knew that they had a program to drill four wells as Stream indicated that they had a
permit from DOG to drill up to four wells. This well was the first of four that was permitted
and that it was intended to be drilled prior to the end of 1999. Stream was to notify the
Agricultural lessee ofidrilling activities and to pay for any loss of crop damage. Castle &
Cooke agreed to endeavor to provide Stream with the name and address of the
agricultural tenant. It was further reiterated that Stream required approximately 1 ¼ acre
drill sites with the ultimate well locations -to take up about ',4 acre and Stream would
extend gathering lines to the site as needed. Castle & Cooke was to move forward with
the entitlement of the:south half of section 12 in Obtaining second reading of R-1 zone'
change. Stream was to.pursue an amendment to the annexation and/or drilling ordinance
which grandfathered in the Canfield Ranch and will further endeavor to include the south
half of section 12 in that grandfathering to expire at the end of 1999. This action was to"
be pursued separately by Stream and was not to be opposed by Castle & Cooke. The
action for grandfathedng was to be separate from the action of obtaining entitlements to
R-1 zone.for the surface development.
At that time Chapter 15.66 of the Municipal Code identified three classes of wells. ClasS
three_was known as a well site and production operation within an area zoned for general
manufactUring-or located within the state approved boundaries of the following stated
designated oil fields regardless of the zone district or distance from dwellings or public
assembly uses as defined in this chapter. At the time that the EIR was certified this was
the language in Title i5. A portion of the Canfield Ranch oil field encompassing the west
three-quarters of section 13 and 24: no well site and/or production operation proposed
after December 31, 11999 shall automatically be considered Class three, but shall be
evaluated with respect to all Class criteria in Section 15.66.030(a) in order to determine
the appropriate permit class and subsequent development standards.
The EIR'was certified in April 1998. Subsequent to that, in accordance with applicant's
agreement with Stream, Stream initiated a change in that ordinance and it now reads:
"Portion of the Canfield Ranch oil field encompassing the west three-quarters of section
13.and 24 was added the southwest qUarter of section 12, and the west half and
southeast quarter of section 12 which is' known as the Canfield Ranch;. No well site and/Or
production operation'proposed after December 31, 1999 shall automatically be
Minutes, PC, AuguSt 2, 2001
Page 5
'considei'ed Class'three, but will be evaluated with respect to all class criteria in Section
_!5.66.030(a)."
This is' consistent with the applicant's agreement with Stream. Stream changed the
Municipal.Code Title 15 to allow for drilling up to December 31, 1999. That was the
agreement and the applicant knew that they were not going to be in the 30 acre area for
some time, and they felt that it was an appropriate time to allow Stream to move forWard
with their drilling program with'the four permits they had from DOG.
As far as the' CEQA requirements, the project has been extensively studied, Title 15 was
incorporated in the Final EIR as a mitigation measure. The mitigation measures apply to
-the development standards which talks about what needs to bedone for. a Class one or -
Classthr~ee well. In a' Class one well you have to put fencing of a solid masonry wall
~which is a minimum of 6' high, but. not to exceed 8' height. The mitigation measure
requires 8'. Landscaping shall be required along all street frontages.' Castle & Cooke is
putting the,landscaping in. Off site ~mprovements: where ad.iacent properties are
similarly improved,'within 180 days of commencement of commercial production, or one
year from the completion of drilling of any well, off-site improvements, including street
paving, curb, gutters, and sidewalks will be put in. Castle & Cooke is putting these items
in. Vehicle Routes: vehicles associated with drilling and/or production and in excess of
th'ree tons shall be restricted to those public roads specified by the City Public Works
Director. The'applicant has not problem with that. The applicant can provide access to
the well sites in accordance with this provision. However, applicant can.not change or
affect the following items in Title 15:' 1) work hours; they are committed to drill 24 hours a
day.. Applicant has no control as they are not the operator; 2) the noise decibel level
which are pa~rt of Ti{le 15 which was all part of the EIR; 3) noise measurements gives the
City the ability to make measurements; 4) all parts of derrick above the floor; have to be
fat a certain elevation, be fire resistive, sound proof material; enclosed with fire resistive
soundproof;material. Applicant has no.control over this. 5) Pipelines: pipe nes utilized
for all petroleum related·operations shall be buried a minimum of three feet below grade.
Applicant has already agreed to take the pipelines out there and relocated them to a
grade th'at is appropriate for the development standards.
The applicant does net think that it is appropriate to just grant a DI zone-in a residential
area~ Even if-it were.a DI zone they would still have to comply with this section of Title
15.66.030 where the wells shall automatically be considered Class three, but shall be
_, evaluated with-respect to all Class criteria in 15.66.030(a). This section specifies that if
you are inan area zoned for residential development it is a Class orie well. You have to.
get a Conditional Use Permit. Or, if it is located less than 500 feet from a dwelling,
.. except'for those used by a caretaker or night security on the same parcel, you have to get
a Conditional Use Permit. There is no way around Stream and the requirement by Title
15 WhiCh Stream amended and agreed to in 1998 that they have to get a Conditional Use
Permit in order to continue to drill within that 30 acre area. Whenever there is a house
that is within 500 feet they have to get a CUP. To date, he is not aware.that a CUP has
been applied for, or even attempted. Back in 1998 Castle & Cooke was told that there
were four well_s permitted. And that the drilling program would start as soon as possible.
They drilled one well which was completed in October of 1998, and since then no other
wells have been attempted.
Tract 6045 is the northerly area north of Chamber Boulevard. Tract 6046 is the area
south of Chamber' Boulevard.
Regarding the June 20th letter memorializing the agreement between' applicant and
Stream it identifiedfive points. 1) Castle & Cooke would reserve by license agreement '
two well/drilksite locations as shown on Exhibit "A" and "B" as located'within tracts 6045
Minutes, PC, August 2,200i
-Page 6
· -and 6046. It'should be noted that these maps are set for hearing by the City of
Bakersfield Plann!ng Commission meeting on June 28, 2001. 2) Castle & Cooke would
' ' "develop'its Ibts which lieimmediately adjacent to these two well sites in accordance with
..applicable City of Bakersfield ordinances. He references Title 15 which is the applicable
ordinance thatallows~Stream to operate within this area. 3) Stream will Quit Claim to
Castle & Cooke Stream's rights of surface access down to a depth Of 500' on the
remaining portions of'section 12. 4) Stream Energy would allow the relocation of its
existing production lines to be within public rightsof way, or alignmentsof'an acceptable
easement to allow for the development of Castle & Cooke's property. This is important
because Castle *&'Cooke agreed to pay for the relocation of those pipe iines so there is
no requirement on Stream to do that. 5) Castle & Cooke would permit Stream to conduct
a Seismic su~ey on I~nds owned by Castle & Cooke within Section 12 at the time the
survey, is conducted, and such survey would be commenced after a formal written
agreement h~s been entered into, but no later than December 31 2001, and would be
completed wi{hin 30 days thereafter. There also was some language about repairing
physical damageto the property.
Mi;. Smith, Ed LeLouis of Stream Energy signed the June 22"d letter, and attached to that'
are the Same Exhibits with the two acre well site in 6045 in Exhibit "A", and the three acre
well site in 6046 in Exhibit "B".
Applicant believed that they had'an agreement and have been working through all of
these issue over the past four or five years. Applicant thought it come to final resolution
with Stream. After the letter was signed on June~22, Stream came back with a formal
agreement, which added the requirement for these areas to be designated and zoned as
DI-drilling islands. Applicant refers to the DI zone.
Section 17.46.020 - Permitted Uses - of the DI zone refers back to Title 15 (15.66:040)
which.is the development standards of Title 15. Even Title 17 refers to Title 15 when it
Comes to development standards. A CUP is still required even if they were to drill in that
area and it was zoned.DI.' Castle & Cooke agrees to support that CUP.
The Department of Oil and Gas records ran today indicates that one well is producing 215
barrels per month, and the other is producing 108 barrels .per month, and the last one is
producing 190 barrels per month (as of May of this year). This yields 17 barrels, a day.
He'questions where-the other 33 barrels of oil are.
Applicant is consistent with Title 15, and Stream should be as well.
Regarding language in the paragraph of the letter, "It appears to be a deliberate attempt
by Castle & Cooke; proposed agreement stalled at least in part because Castle & Cooke
would not support an iearly application to change the zoning of the well site parcels to the .
DI classification. Without DI zoning, additional drilling would require CUP, and permits
issued under 15.66 ahd additional environmental rewew. We think it is very likely that
Stream could not obtain all the necessary permits and that this would have the effect of
curtailing development of petroleum in the northern portion of the Canfield Oil Ranch. We
fear that even production of the existing wells would be jeopardized." Applicant is not
trying to take away aqyone's rights to continue to produce, or. to continue to drill. The
maps d° not take away any of those rights. Applicant has always said that they have a
right-under Stream's lease and that it is not a mineral right holder with tights to surface
entry, and that it is a leasehold, and is equivalent to somebody renting a house, and the
owner coming in and wanting to subdivide his property and all of a sudden the tenant
cornes in and says"wait a minute I don't want you to subdivide this property, because I
occupy the: house." It is the same thing, and actually it is specifically excluded in the
Municipal Code. The !anguage further goes on to say that "we do not believe that Castle
Minutes, PC, Au~lust 2, '2001
page 7
& Cooke can comply With 16.20060(b) of the Municipal-Code without Stream's waiver",
and it goes on to quote that section.
Stream further states!that by approving the maps they will be precludedfrom enjoying
their rights.' Applicant is not precluding Stream from anything in that they are free to go
out anddrill-within tha't 30 acre parcel subject to the provisions of the Title 15 Municipal
Code, which requires a CUP and filed notices.
The letter further states a number of conflicts with the Conservation Element of 2010
General Plan. The applicant is consistent with the 2010 General Plan, and with the
General Plan which was amended by Castle & Cooke and certified by the City Council.
The-impacts were identified in the EIR and the EIR was certified. '
The mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with CEQA, which alloWs for program
EIRs to be used to identify potential impacts. The potential impacts are not caused by
the developer, but are caused by the oil producer.
Applicant is unsure what the reference to McAIlister Ranch is and does not believe it
applies in this case, in that the McAIlister Ranch was a County issue.
The two well sites proposed to be set aside in 30 acres is 20 times the'amount that was
required by the Board of Supervisors in the McAIlister Ranch Project.
The references to TR~31 were brought up. TR:31 was a result in 1982 of a conference
that was entitled Land use and Planning in urban Oil Producing Areas held February 25,
1982 in' Huntington Beach put on by the Huntington Beach Department of Development
Services, Planning Di~vision, State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of
Oil & Gas. In the TR-31 there is a recommendation that a municipalities adopt specific
drilling and producing requirements in their title codes. The City of Bakersfield did that
subsequent to this-TR-31 being recognized, which is now Title 15 of the.Municipal Code.
Regarding the Quit Claim from Vintage Petroleum, it does state in the legal description,
which did not exemptthe 30 acres, recognized the rights subject to the following: the oil
and gas lease between Kern County Land Company, Hancock Oil, which is subsequently
obtained by Strbam Energy. Applicant feels that those rights are still in place, and that
Stream has the ability to exercise those rights subject to Title-15. The Quit Claim was
obtained from Vintage Oil and is consistent with Title 16 of the Subdivision Code for the
City of Bakersfield, and is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.
Applicant agrees that.every step of the way Stream has been involved,' and feel that now
is the time to address these issues at the Tentative Map stage. They have set aside two
well sites for_their use; a two acre site and a three acre site that was suggested by Stream
during negOtiations. Applicant is consistent with the Municipal Code, Title 16, and
applicant has obtained all of the waivers of the surface access rights of the mineral
holders, and the applicant will adhere to that letter agreement between Stream and Castle
& Cooke.
CEQA does require issues to be resolved at the early stages, and applicant feels that they
have resolved them, and addressed them in 1998. The program EIR can be used to
identify subsequent actions and subsequent mitigation measures. Applicant feels that the
mitigation measures adopted by reference in Title 15 are appropriate for this project and
that the Negative Declaration that the City of Bakersfield has suggested is the apprOpriate
vehicle.
Minutes, PC~ Au~lust 2, 2001
Page~8
Requested changes to some of the conditions 'in the spirit of Cooperation with the Lessee,
and theyhave to dowitha particular design feature that Will continue to allow them to -
produce and to enjoy the uses on these two well sites. Applicant requests that condition
number three for tract 6045 be amended as follows: "A waiver of. direct access rights - ·
.from all abutting lots, except for the well site shown as Lot B toChamber Boulevard will
be reqi~ired." That. will allow them access off of Chamber Boulevard directly into the well
site: ".Upon conversion of the well site to residential use (which will happen some day): 1)
waiver of direct access to Chamber Boulevard from Lot B shall be required; 2) the.
driveway and g~te to t'he well site from Chamber Boulevard shall be 'replaced with the City
' standard curb, gutter and sidewalk and masonry wall to match the existing wall; and 3) ..
landscaping to match Ithe existing landscaping shall be installed.
APPlicant is asking for accommOdation in that condition because they feel that it is
appropriate to handle .the subsequent abandonment of those wells.
In addition, applicant requests the addition of the following condition: 1) Prior to
recordation of a final: map there shall be a covenant recorded on each lot within 500' of
Lot B, thee well site, which shall disclose to future buyers of lots in the tract of the well
site's existence. Subdividers shall submit the covenant to the Planning Director foi' review
prior tO recordation of.a final map. Applicant feels that it is important and appropriate to
notify everybody moving into the area that there are well sites at these locations, and
there.should be no question that they know that when they move in, so that when a CUP
is applied for that everyone has already had prior notification. -.
Applicant also requests changes to Conditions Of Approval for. Vesting Tentative Tract '
6046. Condition number 3: "A waiver of direct access rights shall be required from all
abutting lots to Chamber Boulevard, Windemere Street, and White Lane, except for the
retention baSin and the three acre well site. The applicant wants to afford Stream to get
access off of White Lane instead of through the subdivision area. upon. conversion of
the well site to residential use, waiver of direct access to White Lane from the well site
shall be .required. 2) the driveway and gate to the well site shall be replaced with the City
standard curb; gutter, sidewalk and-masonry wall to match the existing wall; 3)
Landscaping to match the'existing landscaping shall be installed; and 4)'a 6' high chain
link fence may be required by the City engineer to separate the residential lots.and the
retention basin."
In addition to that, the applicant requests that a condition be added that disclosed these
well sites that'says: "Prior to recordation of a final map, there shall be a covenant
recorded on every lot within 500 feet of the proposed well site to disclose to buyers of lots
in .the tract to the well's existence. Subdividers shall submit the covenant to the Planning
Director fore review'prior recordation of a final map." This is consistent.with Castle &
Cooks' agreement with Stream Energy and is appropriate that the people who are
moving, into the neighborhood are notified up front before they purchase their lots that
there .are these well sites located within the subdivision.
Applicant has reviewed the rest of the Staff Report, and. concur with the conditions of
approval, subject to the two memos from Planning staff on 6045 and one on 6046, and ask
for the Commissions' approval.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Five minute recess taken.
Minutes, PC, August 2, 2001
'Page 9
Chair Boyle inquired of staff whether the Quit Claim is sufficient to meet the ordinance
and if it '~s a question of fact for the Commission to discuss, 'or is it a question of law to
which staff responded that the Quit Claim Deed is sufficient, and if it is a question of law
it would be-a jurisdiction h~gner than this Commission.
Chair Boyle commented that the issue on the Negative Declaration is part of the actual
resolution that it is a question of fact that the Commission needs to determine that there is
sufficient evidence On the record to support the Negative Declaration. With regard to
whether the Deed is legally sufficient to meet the statute he inquires whether it is a
question of fact for the Commission to discuss, or does the City Attorney need to advise
the Commission that it is sufficient. Staff responded that it is the opinion of the City
Attomey'.s Office that the Commission can rely on staff on the City Attorney's Office is ·
saying that is sufficient.
Chair Boyle inquired if there is a reason why the ordinance only requireS the consent of
the mineral owner and not the lessee where the lease is active, to whichstaff responded
that they are not sure ,what the historical significance is as to how and why that ordinance
was written.
Chair Boyle inquired if the Commission could reach a conclusion that the Negative
Declaration is not appropriate even if the staff has recommended that it:be approved, to
which staff responded that the Commission could do that.
Chair Boyle inquired of the difference between a Program EIR and a Project EIR to
which staff responded that a Program EIR looks at an overall process Of development of'
an area in this particular case. It covered two square miles and it went "into looking at
the generalities of urbanization of this area, and the mitigation measures reflect that. A
Project EIR has very Specific elements with which to base the analysis on. It gives
particular numbers of~lots, actual configuration, actual construction and goes into a
detailed analysis of the very specific and unique characteristics of that project.
Chair Boyle inquired what the required findings would be for the Commission to make an
order tb require a Project EIR to which staff responded that the Commission would have
to determine that there is a significant impact that has not be adequately analYZed under
the Negative Declaration. This could either send it into more study and 'eventually come
back with a Negative. Declaration again, or it could be determined that it could be'an
impact that could not be mitigated and then the applicant would want the protection of an
EIR to. achieve a statement of overriding considerations in the end. ~
Chair Boyle disclosed~ that he met With the applicant, Stream Energy and staff earlier.
today.
Chair Boyleinquired that if a DI zone was granted to Stream Energy if that would exempt'
them from the CU process due to the fact that there will be houses within 500 feet of any
well'that theycould build on the property, to which staff responded that in this case there
would be noCU process if a DI zone was granted, because the ordinance (15.66.030)
that was referred to Which moves that Class three to a Class one category.
CUP is required regardless if the zoning is granted. The CUP process would be
required in this instance. -
Chair Boyle inquired if they can rely upon the Program EIR which was'done on this
project whichwas based upon a Kern River Freeway which will now not be built, to which
staff responded that there will still be a facility built, as it is still part of the proposed Option
15 that was reviewed, and it also includes what would be called the Kern River Parkway
Minutes, PC, August 2, 2001
Page 1!0
'or Expressway, and the facility would be very similar to what would have been 58; six
lanes; Limited access, controlled access, interchanges, and simply would not be built to
be a State highway'or maintained ~by the State Highway, but would be a City sponsored,
City owned, City operated facility as a super arterial. The modeling that has been done
-by Kern COG and done with the selection process for the Bakersfield System Study all
included afacility along that as a part of the no build project. It is also a part of the 15 .
Project that was determined. It is staff's recommendation that there will be no difference
there.
Chair Boyle ~nquired about the difference in.capacity between a freeway and an ~,... :. -
expressway, to'which,staff responded that it would still be a limited access, 65 mph
design, interchange as opposed to surface streets with signals. The final design would be.
the same as the freeway design.
Commissioner Brady stated that he was contacted by the applicant and Stream Energy to'
meet with them, and he declined and advised them to provide their comments in writing.
Commissioner Brady commented that the Quit Claim is subject to the oil and gas lease,
and they can't quit claim what they don't have, and if they have already given it up by the
lease he has to:disagree with staff on this. Commissioner Brady commented that they
have an opportUnity to resolve an issue that is going to come up again in the future '
regarding the existing' oil and gas industry and the need to provide reasonable homes in
the community. He believes the City has made a good start n passing the ordinances
that are on the booksi By creating drilling islands so that drilling operations can go on, he
feels that they can accommodate the ongoing production of oil and gas and still allow the
community to develop. In this case, however, he does not feel that what Stream is asking
for is not something that the Commission can g~ve. Even if the zoning was changed to a
DI zone, based on his understanding, Stream would still have to get a CUP, which is what
Stream is trying toavOid. Castle & Cooke has stated that they will not oppose the CUP.
Commissioner Bradyinquired of Stream Energy as to the expiration of the existing
permits to which Jeff Smith of Stream Energy responded that the permits were granted ir~
1998 and are grantedlfor a year term typically and they have continued them for several '
years, and as part of this relocation issue they have applied in the last 10 days to relocate
all of those wells such that any access directly below the wells would be done by
directional dril.ling.'
commissioner Brady expressed some concerns with the Negative Declaration and why
there were no noise mitigation issues, to which staff responded that the requirement that
right now they look at:the existing environment and determine if the subdivision based on
the existing uses is going to exposes people to something that is hazardous or noisy.
Further, future projects that would comein for use permits and have their own
environmental document. For the ordinances in effect right now, under Title 15, a lot of
the criteria and development standards was obtained using this EIR which was done on
urban dwelling drilling in 1986. Mr. Moreno has testified that the noise from the engines is
not a problem because they are quiet. He was concerned with the actual pumping unit
themselves. This EIR went through all the uses of a drilling operation and analyzed their
!mpacts.
Commissioner Brady.inquired if that EIR analyzed re-drill to which staff responded in the
affirmation, and that with regard to what' is out there right now the EIR discusses the
pumping unit and states "The unit from the gear box that reduces the drive system
rotation to the appropriate rotational speed for the counter balance of the pumping-unit
rods. However, when properly maintained, no significant level of noise will be generated."
These were the concerns mentioned by the applicant (the enginesand Pumping units
.Minutes, PC,-AuguSt 2, 2001
Page 11
themselves). ' Based on that and the requirement for the wall around ~the perimeter which
does significantly reduce noise staff felt that they could appropriately check the box on the
Negative Deblaration that indicates that it is not going to be significant from what is out
ther~e right now.
Commissione~' Brady'states the mineral production will be impacted. Tl~e drilling islands
are the mitigation for that and so he feel that is was inappropriate to check the box that
'there was no impact. The impacts are there but are being mitigated. He stated that he is
not sure that checking the box makes it defective, but disagrees with the boxes that got
Checkecl.
Mr. Joyce for Stream ~Energy stated that the reason Stream is requesting that the
-Commission ook at the need for a DI zoning as part of the due process is because they
don't dispute that.they will have to come back at the time Stream wants t6 actually drill the
well under-Title 15 fo~ a CUP. The issue for Stream is that if they had the DI zoning n
place; more than- half.0f the issues involving mitigation and other things 'have been dealt
with because they are.embraced within the DI ordinances themselves.. They then have
the right to drill and have to comply with Title 15 in order to' drill. The way that the process
is proceeding now, Stream will not have a right to drill without going through the CUP
process. The applicant's proposal does not satisfy the DI ordinance. A DI ordinance
requires a 305' width and requires various setback limitations which these two zone areas
will not accomplish. :The reason the negotiations broke down is that in the letter of intent
(the June 22"a letter was a letter in.principal and a letter of intent, that by it's content
contemplated the two parties working out operating sites, and drilling sites to be
formalized in a formal legal document later). When Mr. Joyce got involved and said
Stream needed DI zoning that is when Castle & Cooke and Stream's negotiations broke
down. Stream has the service rights to the entire 30 acres. Stream wil! give it up if they
- can get the DI zoningi consistent with the Municipal Code so that Stream has the
predicate to go into 15 to get a CUP when Stream is ready to drill. WithOut the DI they
cannot meet any setback requirements under these two locations as they are presently
configured. This is the problem. To that extent, the Negative Declaration' does not
address the issue, because without looking into the future, and maximizing the benefits,
and recogniz!ng the detriments and'attem pting to avoid the downside, they are not
planning.
Commissioner Bradyinquired if staff would enlighten the Commission on Staff's position
that Stream would have if the Commission approved the applicant as presented versus
giving Stream Energy DI zoning in each of these drill alignments and what the difference
in those two decisions. Staff responded that it is impossible for the Commission to deliver
DI zoning and to change the zoning on the property Castle & Cooke would have to sign
the application if it is initiated other than by City staff. This site deal with an ordinance
section that deals with 1999, which refers back to putting them in a Class one. So they
not only would need the DI zoning in the area, they would have to remove that section of
the ordinance that puts them back'in a Class ohe CUP in order to get out of the CUP. If
they just got the DI zoning alone, they still have to get a CUP because the other part of
the ordinance requires it.
Mr; Mclntosh stated that without the DI zone they would be precluded from drilling,
however, they recognize that they would have to get a CUP in accordance with Title 151
Keep in mind that this is a vesting tentative tract map. Castle &'Cooke has already locked
in those rights for them to operate within Title 15, because that Title 15 was in place at the
timethe City accepted the application. Castle & Cooke has given Stream the rights and
locked itin with the vesting tract application. The vesting maps give them those rights
subject to Title 15.
Minutes, PC, AuguSt 2, 2001 .
Page12
'Brady inquired if it is the applicant's Positionthat the effect of the approvai"
of the application as Presented gives Stream all the rights and privileges'that they could
have if they. went back and did a DI zone for those two sites, to which the applicant
res in the negative. The applicant explained that at the time ofaccePtance of the
application the vesting tract maps lock in Title 15 which gives' them the ability to go
through Title 15 proci~dures, obtain conditional use permits which allow them to continue-
to produce and drill. 'As far as configurat!on it was proposed by Stream'and accepted by
Castle & Cooke.
Commissioner Brady why they oppose Stream's.idea of putting DI zoning on the two
.parcels to which the'applicant responded that the DI zoning does not preclude-Stream
from obtaining a CUP. Applicaht believes that the CUP is the appropriate process to go
through so that- e{/erybody who is within 500; of the area will have disclosure. Disclosure
under a CUP goes beyond that. Everybody in the neighborhood will know that there are
well sites there, and they will be notified that a CUP is being applied for. If the CUP was
applied for tomorrow nobody would be notified except for Castle & Cooke, and they would
suppo~ that.
Commissioner Brady inquired hoTM that would be different under a DI zone to which the
applicant confirmed that Stream would still have to apply for the cUP. Applicant stated
that the hearing tonight is notto apply for a DI zone because it is not partof the "
application.
Commissioner Brady stated his understanding that Stream is asking the Commission to
condition the approval of applicant's tentative tract map by zoning these two drill islands
as .DI zone, to which applicant stated that would not be acceptable.
Jim MOren° Stated that Commissioner Brady'.s question is directly{ relevant to the issue
because it is not known what changes would have to take place if Stream were, in fact,
drilling under a DI zone or under a CUP. The DI zone would shake out those ansWers
needed as faras setbacks, walls, etc. There are no answers to these questions
because there is not a DI zone. The Ell:{ has not been clear on these ~sSues.
Commissioner Brady stated that there would be an EIR with the CUP or the DI zone. Mr.
Moreno commented that the noise levels and setbacks.would, be known before the
houses-are built. This information should be .available so the houses can be designed
accordingly.
Staff clarified that-in a general situation (not this one) the difference between the DI zone
~s simply that once a DI zone is established there is no-need to go through the CUP
process. This case is unique because even if we did have the DI zone, there is a specific
-reference to this section under the ordinance (15.66.030), which requires Stream to get
the CUP.
Commission Brady cdmmented that it appears that the issue is an ordinance change
rather than a zone chaqge. It appears that the ordinance would have to be changedto
g~ve Stream what they want. It appears that after December 31, 1999 even if you had a
DI zone in this particular section it is subject to Title 15' and there is actually no difference.
If the DI zone was granted tonigh[ there would be no effect because the CUP would still
'be uired.
Mr. Mclnt0sh-clarifiedthat the DI zone has no setback requirements and defers to Title 15
and defers to the development standards of'Title 15.67040. In the development
standards, ~that is where the setbacks are discussed.
Minutes,*PC, August 2, 2001
Page 13
Mr~. Joyce commented that the DI at the outset is intended to address the reality of future
drilling operations. _
Commissioner Brady stated that he hasn't come to a resolution in his mind.
Chair Boyle-stated that his understanding of Mr. Joyce is that if somehow through the
required process a DI zone was put in place that the setback requirements would be
determined as part or'that DI zone process and would not be subject to being re-litigated
as part of the .CUP, to which staff responded that they do not concur. It is staff's
understanding that the BZA would have a certain degree of discretion and latitude at the
time that the application was being made, including setbacks.
Commissioner Sprague disclosed that he talked with City Staff, City Attorney's office,
Stream Energy, Castle & Cooke, Mr. Moreno, the Department of Oil and Gas, BIA, and
Board of Realtors.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks that the Commission has two situations.
One is to deny by tracts, or the other to include a drilling island zone and alter the
ordinance down the road. A 100' set back is a health and safety issue in a subdivision.
Stream has three licenses to drill oil wells, and this Commission should not prevent them
from exercising their nights to drill those wells. There is a Quit Claim Deed and it is
'subject to the lessee right's to extract the minerals. Castle & Cookehas to recognize the
rights of the mineral right holders in the area.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of the City Attorney if there is any way to approve both .
tracts and condition them with DI zones of 305 by 305 with 50' buffers without Stream
having to'get a CUP, to which staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Sprague
-inquired if the Commission could change the ordinance to put the condition on, to which
.staffresponded that a direct'answer was impossible.
Commissione[ Sprague inquired about approving both tracts with drilling, island
-provisions, with the sam e. measurements, and recommend to City Council that before
they approve both tracts that they change the ordinance to read that the applicant can
extract his minerals without going to a CUP application. Staff responded thatfrom a legal-
_perspective they would prefer the maps be denied and allow the applicant to appeal to the
-City Council for the reason that the DI zone cannot be imposed without the applicant's
approval,_
CommissiOner Sprague inquired of Mr. Joyce that if the Commission conditions the
approval 'of both tracts on drilling islands is Stream satisfied with that scenario and be
happy.with going for the CUP under those provisions, to which Mr. Joyce responded that
with a mitigation measure that there be a required DI zoning somewhere within those
tracts, to accommodate Stream's needs and with the realization that Stream then follow
the CUP process as to 15 for the balance of it, Stream would be satisfied.
Commissioner Sprague stated it is his understanding that in a DI zone.the CUP is easier'
to acquire because there are provisions within the DI zone that are more laxed then they
are then the regular CUP process under the 15 ordinance to which Mr. Joyce'responded
that the more Correct ,view that Stream would hold is that if Stream got a true DI zoning
as required by Municipal Code Section 17 et seq, .within this area (the 30 acres), Stream
believes that the intent of the setback would be satisfied as contemplated in Title 15 ~'
because the DI will' itself embrace those. Stream would have a 90% greater comfort level
with the DI zomng in place for drilling operations if they are in turn going to waive up the
balance of their surface rights in the remaining 30 acres because 'Stream believes that
Minutes, PC~ August 2, 2001
Page 14
gives them. legal rights by virtue of the zoning itself, which would be hard to ignore at a
later stage. ·
Commissioner Sprague inquired if Stream would also'be requesting that the drill site be
305 by 305 with or without a buffer, to which Mr. Joyce responded that it really isn't an
issue of requesting, but the intent of Title 17 cannot be met without requiring that.
CommiSsioner Sprague inquired of the City Attorney if the Commission could require a
drill island of the size Stated (305 by 305) with the buffer (50') if the Commission approves
the two tracts, to which .Mr. Joyce suggested that the Commission couldmake that as a
mitigation condition. Neither Stream nor the Commission can initiate the process, nor
mpose it or force it upon Castle & Cooke,'but the CommisSion would have it within its.
power to make a condition of approval of any map that the applicant recOgnize the
mineral resource that'~s in issue and the need to mitigate it'to do a prope~ Negative
Declaration, ·or for that matter any environmental assessment, and not to simply ignore it,
and say in order to address the realization that We have a conservation element and
mineral resources in place that need to be dealt with in the environmental review process,
the Applicant should also apply for and provide for set aside to address that reality (i.e.,.
provide as part of the:plan a DI).
Commissioner Sprague statedthat he wants to protect the mineral right holder and the
'lessee so that they can extracl, and to do that the homeowner that is going to live
adjacent to the sitealso has to be protected.
Staff responded that it is not legally permissible to condition the map to require a DI zone.
The Commission does not have the right to put the condition on the app,'oval of both
.tracts, so consequently if the Commission does not like what is before them, and staff has
requested that the Commission approve, the Commission can:only'approve or deny it.
Staff responded that the Commission could change the construction of the existing well
sites that the applicant has indicated on.their map, but in terms of putting the condition of
approval as a DI zone it cannot be done. -
'Commissioner Sprague inquired of the applicant if it would accept a condition of DI zoning
to which the applicant responded in the negative. .
Commissioner Sprague inquired of the Fire Marshall if 100' is sufficient footage from an
active well site with 5000 psi to shield or not consume the residential home that is
adjacent thereto, to which he responded that the fire codes don't deal with that issue, but
there might be some Federal Code of Regulations or -.
DOG that deals with that. The Fire Marshall commented that if he was a resident there
- that just the vibration alone would be unsettling'.
Joseph Austin a Energy and mineral Resource Engineer with the Division of Oil and Gas
stated-that the State Public Resources Code and the Regulation does not refer
specifically to the setback. The drilling permits are designed with discretion and blowout
prevention manuals. There are specific laws that recognize what a critical well is and a
critical well is defined as being within 300' of a dwelling not required.for the operation of
the well.
Commissioner SpragUe inquired if 300' would be more sufficient to which Mr. Austin
responded in the affirmative; His recollection was that the drilling islands were to include
all the setbacks by definition that all the required setbacks would be there. In the EIR
'Minutes, PC, Au~lust'2, 2001
Page 15.
process and on the parcel map siages, theDOG has'recommended setting aside drilling
island.s where the operator could drill by rights.
Commissioner SpragUe if it would be DOG's recommendation to have drill islands and
'have proper setbacks, for health, safety and welfare reasons, to which Mr. Austin
responded in the affirmative, and stated that DOG would like to speak in favor of drilling
islands for health and:. safety issues and access to the minerals, and conservation of the
oilfields. ·
Commissioner SpragUe inqu!red if DOG has changed it's mind of that attitude from the
1988 ~heeting to protect the public, to which Mr. Austin responded that the TR31
publication came about because the LA basin is way ahead of us in having to deal with
these local issues (development encroaching into oilfields). Mr. Austin does not believe
he can make a policylstatement.
Commissioner Sprague stated that his common sense belief is that there needs to.be a
broader buffer zone between working oil wells of this caliber and residential homes that
are going to be placed there, and that CC&R and possibly delineation on the deeds to ·
these lots needs to be provided to the homeowners. He believes that a drill island is the
answer to the problem tonight, although the City Attorney says they can't do that. If it
can't be done, then he would be in favor of just denying both tracts and letting the
applicant go forward with an appeal to the City Council. The public record should read that
the City Council ~should be aware that the Planning Commission would request drill
islands in this particular situation, and that the ordinance should be changed to allow for
drill islands in these certain situations so that the rights Of mineral holders and/or lessees
to extract are not encumbered.
Staff clarified that the ,Commission cannot condition the approval of the map with the drill
island zone. The Commission can condition the map on a drill island as opposed to the
DI zone in that the drill island is specifically mentioned in 15.66.080,-and the reasoning is
based on the validlty of the Quit Claim Deed. If the Commission goes on the assumption
that the Quit Claim Deed is valid, then you bypass any option to go ahead and put in the
drill island. The Commission can ignore staff's opinion, and put the basis that the Quit
-Claim-is not valid, then the Commission could condition the map on the drill island and
make it on the suggested dimensions, and staff would also suggest that the Commission
talk with Castle & Cooke and perhaps see if that is an option that they can live with
instead of the drill island Zone.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he does not believe that the Quit Claim is valid. He
thinks that he would be in a position to approve the subdivisions with the DI zone for the
lessee.because he does not believe that it is a valid Quit Claim Deed. He thinks that
there was nothing to give.
Staff inquired what is meant by DI zone: the DI zone, or a drilling island to which
Commissioner Sprague responded that he means a drilling island zone. 'A DI zone.
Staff'.soriginal comments stand that legal's position is that the DI zone cannot be mposed
at this stage s~nce the maps have already vested.
Commissioner Sprague inquired of lessee if a drilling island that relates to section. 17 is
acceptable to which lessee responded that is what they believe they need because it
addresses the setback issues. The drilling island referred to is that contemplated by
16.020.060 which is the alternative for the applicant. But then the applicant has tO give
notice to the lessee, and the lessee has the right to come and say "No, this isn't going-to
do it", the lessees has rights to discuss the necessity for dimensions to address H & S
issues. -
Minutes, PC, August 2, 2001
Page1'6
Commissioner Sprague ~nquired of staff if they can cOndition it based on a drilling island in'
accordance with Section 17, to which staff responded in the negative and that it would
have to'be in conjunction with Chapter 15.
Commissioner Sprague commented that the Commission would have no alternative, to
which staff responded that the alternative would be for Stream to concede that they have.
received notice and then also again for the applicant to concede to the drill island specs
that is being proposing. The alternate would be to deny the map.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he believes the commission should den~/both tracts:
and let the applicant ~ppeal it to the City Council, but go on record that we do need an
ordinance change that protects the minera right holder and lessees' interest on properties
as the Planning Commission and City Council looks at apProving subdivisions.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he would be prepared to make a motion to approve
both tracts with drilling items as set forth in accordance with Section 17.
Mr. Movius stated that the whole reason the applicant files a vesting tentative map is to
lock in the rules in effect at the time that the application has ~been deemed complete,
which was done on March 2nd. The applicant Wants to play by the rules in effect at the
time. Since December 1999 Stream has known that this was coming and there could
have been aPplications for zone changes at that time. Now the applicant is exercising
their rights,.and the Commission needs to be real careful before asking them give up
those rights that are Under State law provided to them. Regarding the CEQA issue, and
the only thing to be examined at this Point is the existing operations. There are wells all
over the City in very close proximity to homes that are existing pumping Units. Mr.
Moreno was. an applicant for a subdivision on the north side of Stockdale Highway Where
there were oil wells adjacent to homes on almost the same size lot as'the homes
themselves. Staff does not believe further study is needed. There have never been any'
complaints..Staff totally disagrees with the statements made by the opponents that this
is inconsistent with the General Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the environmental is
sufficient. When the particular project comes in for a CUP on this site, or if somehow
there was a drilling island application, then at that time that is the project that could impact
the adjacentuses and that is looked at bnder CEQA and the studies are:done to
determine the noise impact based on that unique project. That is specifically why they say
you come in for a use permit on the drilling island set aside as part of the subdivision.
With a'drilling island zone and there is no public hearing. Standards With the drilling
island as a two-acre site, or as a drilling island zone, are very similar..One gets a public
hearing and the other:doesn't.
Commissioner Tragish disclosed that he has spoke with Jeff Smith, Mr. Mclntosh and Mr.
DeBranch and.Mr. Moreno. He thinks that the Quit Claim Deed has some inherent
ambiguities in it. There ~s some question in his mind as to the validity 0fthe Quit Claim
and whether any surface rights actually passed or not. He inquired of staff if there were
no surface rights as to what would happen next to which staff responded that the Code
sets out several alterr~atives. If the applicant did not have the surfacewaiver then they
would have to provide a drill island.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he feels the same as Commissioner Sprague and he
feels that.the only way to handle .this at this time would be to reject with recommendations
to the City Council.
Staff again recommended that the Commission deny the maps.
Minutes, PC,August 2, 2001
Page i7
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Mclntosh's August 2, 2001 letter requiring the
addition of the following condition and if the 500' will allow notice to be given to every lot in
that tract, to which Mr. Mclntosh replied that he did not have an answer to that. '
RECESS =TAKEN
Mr. ponded that the applicant would agree to a covenant'on every lot.in the tract;
or 500' whichever is greater.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of staff that if there are not a waiver Of'the surface rights then
the applicant would have to provide a drilling island pursuant to the ordinance and that would
mean it woUld precipitate an automatic, surface waiver for the entire tract, to which Staff
res that if they reserved a drill island it would allow a waiver of the requirement for
s~gnatures on the final map. Therefore, they wouldn't have to get a waiver, in addition to that.
If the Commission found itwas satisfactory protected mineral rights then it would allowwaiver
of signatures on the final map.
Commissioner Tragish inquired that if the Commission was to accept.the (~rilling islands ~s
proposed by Castle & Cooke in the two tracts before the Commission nOW, then the
Commission would have the power to waive the surface rights requirement, to which staff
res that the Commission would make a finding that satisfied that section of-the
ordinance that says if~they set aside the drill size they no longer need the signatures Of the
mineraldght holders. ~
Commissioner_-I'ragish. inquired of staff which takes precedence as far as the application
when :there ~s a conflict between the General Plan and an ordinance, to which staff
res the ordinance takes precedence.
Staff further stated that Stream' has stated that they did not waive their rights of notice to the
drill island ~ssue, so the Commission cannot get there tonight unless Stream said they had
seen the map and the agreed that they had received notice and they waive their rights for
notice under the ordinance.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of staff that if the Commission were to grant the tract maps
with thecondition of a_drillingisland zone which would precipitate a change in the proposed
map, would Castle & Cooke have to come back with another rendition of the vesting map
for approval, or does the Commission approve the new map as reconfigure.d with thedrilling
island zone and it's requirements as far as depth, width and buffer, to which staff responded
-that it would not be legally permissible'for the Commission to condition this map on a DI
zone.
Commissioner Tragish stated that the threshold question is the surface rights, and that he
believes the plan hasto be rejected, and the City Council has to address this.
Mr. Mclntosh stated that Castle & Cooke and Stream Energy have come to a resolution and
an agreement, and Castle & Cooke would like a continuance of two weeks to formulate the
plan and provide the exhibits necessary to go forward with this project. '
Jeff Smith stated that he would need a continuance of a.month due to a calendar conflict, and.
Castle & Cooke.is agreeable to the One month conti nuance.
CommissiOner Gay disclosed that he met with all. principals regarding this. '
Minutes, PC, AU~lUSt 2, 2001
Page 18
.Mr. Mclntosh clarified',that the applicant will Waive the Pe~'mit Streamlining Act requirements
:to acton the application within six months to g~ve them that one month window of opportunity,
otherwise 'the continuance would have-to be Within two weeks.
Commissioner Boyle Stated he concedes the circumstances coming before the Commission
again :in the future, and .would encourage the City Attorney's Office or staff to make a
'recommendation to City Couhcil that the ordinances be reconsidered, specifically that the
waiver should-include'active mineral interests and should not just be the mineral right holder.
Commissioner Boyle ifurther stated that they should look at coming Up With some type'of
modification in the sound/noise ordinances to allow for a temporary exceeding of itfor limited
period's of time for drilling periods.
Staff recommended that the Chair put together a committee to discuss these items and then
_use. the liaison from the Planning Commission to the City Council to discuss possible
-changes to the ordinance.
Commissioner Sprague stated that when they get to the committee stage that the committee
should consider the s~ze, and the depth of the drilling rig and the noise that it would produce,
as well as the other issues discussed.
Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis to continue
this item for four weeks; to the first meeting in September. Motion carried.
comm-issioner Boyle inquired if.the public portion of the hearing has to bb re-opened at the
next meeting, to which staff responded that legally it should be renoticed, ~nd if that changes
staff will advise. '
5.1 DISCUSSION ON CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE KERN RIVER FREEWAY AND ITS' AFFECT ON
o
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.
Not available for discussion.
COMMUNiCATioNS '
Mr.-Movius stated that there ~s one memorandum from him regarding a question'by Commissioner
Sprague on the-Northwest PrOmenade and access out to the west.
Mr. Movius further stated that, the Commission has a memorandum from the City Attorney who is
suggesting some changes to the Agenda packet and will leave and discuss at-a later date.
Mr. Movius also stated that they will be putting the presentation of the freeway system on the next
Agenda.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Boyle appointed Commissioner Brady to chair to the committee to study the ordinances related
to well/drill oper~ations,, as well as Commissioners McGinnis and Gay.
Minutes, PC, August 2, 2001
Page 1'9
10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-
11.
August 22, 2001
MEETING.
There will be. a pre;meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being'no further busineSs to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:47
p.m.
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary
ES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
g Planning Director